<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Lifestream Blog - Latest Comments in Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.disqus.com/</link><description>Social data aggregation, lifelogging, quantified self and digital preservation.</description><atom:link href="https://lifestreamblog.disqus.com/top_30_friendfeed_users_based_on_google_ranking/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:54:50 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-2396910</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Can you periodically recalculate this?  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;@elliottng&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">elliottng</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:54:50 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-795680</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"... some people made the point that this just searches for who is using the term "friendfeed" most (which seems the main reason why Scoble and Gray made the top besides they're heavy users)!"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;i dont think that it's as simple as that, with a test i ran.  i'll give it more time though.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sull</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:35:41 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-782773</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Alexander,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Yes, I agree that there are other methods that can be used to create ranking lists. I was just having fun with this. Your method seems better &amp;amp; Mitchell Tsai has also written about using Google page counts &lt;a href="http://friendfeed.com/e/3d2ed53c-1a34-49a2-a0cd-877c4c679e60/Top-FriendFeed-Users-by-number-of-pages-on/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://friendfeed.com/e/3d2ed53c-1a34-49a2-a0cd-877c4c679e60/Top-FriendFeed-Users-by-number-of-pages-on/"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. I'm glad that this post has created some dialog on using other ranking methods and I look forward to watching what others create. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mark Krynsky</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:30:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-781324</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I adopted this idea to get the "Top 30 german-writing friendfeed users" by just restricting the search to language=german:&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://intelligentesleben.blogspot.com/2008/06/die-top-30-der-deutschsprachigen_29.html" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://intelligentesleben.blogspot.com/2008/06/die-top-30-der-deutschsprachigen_29.html"&gt;http://intelligentesleben.b...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But in the discussion on friendfeed ...&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://friendfeed.com/e/d10fa425-a662-63ac-f59c-594258203605/Die-Top-30-der-deutschsprachigen-Friendfeed/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://friendfeed.com/e/d10fa425-a662-63ac-f59c-594258203605/Die-Top-30-der-deutschsprachigen-Friendfeed/"&gt;http://friendfeed.com/e/d10...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;... some people made the point that this just searches for who is using the term "friendfeed" most (which seems the main reason why Scoble and Gray made the top besides they're heavy users)! Is there any reason you left this term in? Wouldn't it be better to do the search just for the domain &lt;a href="http://friendfeed.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="friendfeed.com"&gt;friendfeed.com&lt;/a&gt; without any specific term at all?&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;as_q=&amp;amp;as_epq=&amp;amp;as_oq=&amp;amp;as_eq=&amp;amp;num=100&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;as_filetype=&amp;amp;ft=i&amp;amp;as_sitesearch=friendfeed.com&amp;amp;as_qdr=all&amp;amp;as_rights=&amp;amp;as_occt=any&amp;amp;cr=&amp;amp;as_nlo=&amp;amp;as_nhi=&amp;amp;safe=images" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;as_q=&amp;amp;as_epq=&amp;amp;as_oq=&amp;amp;as_eq=&amp;amp;num=100&amp;amp;lr=&amp;amp;as_filetype=&amp;amp;ft=i&amp;amp;as_sitesearch=friendfeed.com&amp;amp;as_qdr=all&amp;amp;as_rights=&amp;amp;as_occt=any&amp;amp;cr=&amp;amp;as_nlo=&amp;amp;as_nhi=&amp;amp;safe=images"&gt;http://www.google.com/searc...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Alexander Ebel</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:26:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-772057</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Aww, thanks Susan!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Phil Glockner</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:10:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-771439</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"Well, now we know who the most important FriendFeed users are" was the title of the post that started this.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://blog.slaven.net.au/archives/2008/06/12/well-now-we-know-who-the-most-important-friendfeed-users-are/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://blog.slaven.net.au/archives/2008/06/12/well-now-we-know-who-the-most-important-friendfeed-users-are/"&gt;http://blog.slaven.net.au/a...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;"So it's fun to see how Google's algorithm levels the playing field somewhat to provide these stats."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;that's what i mean, their should not even be a playing field to level.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sull</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:03:13 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-771006</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for noticing this.  I feel famous now!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">kevinpshan</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 15:35:09 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-770580</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I never said "most important" anywhere in my post. In fact, to the contrary, after paging through Google's results I thought it would be fun to put this together because (a) it contained many people that are great FriendFeed users yet not at the top of the digerati &amp;amp; (b) I was surprised to find myself appear in it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The measuring stick for popularity on Twitter is Twitterholic which is based on number of followers. FriendFeed has consciously decided not to expose this number for users of its service. So it's fun to see how Google's algorithm levels the playing field somewhat to provide these stats. Until someone comes up with something better, this is all we got.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mark Krynsky</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 14:23:50 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-770338</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Can't believe that Mitchell Tsai isn't in the top 30 he is one of the most active people on the FriendFeed!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Joe Dawson</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:37:52 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-770082</link><description>&lt;p&gt;My peeve is people calling popular bloggers "rockstars". C'mon, writing a blog on your laptop that thousands of people might read is not on a par with creating and arranging music, living on the road, inspiring people (and all of the negative stuff, too). I think people say this to stroke the bloggers' egos but it just makes me laugh when I hear it because it is so off the mark. Just because someone is well-known within a certain small, insular community on the Internet doesn't make them Bono.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;You are bloggers, that should be good enough...this inflation of their importance outside their own network of colleagues is more than a little ridiculous. Ask any random person on the street who Blogger X and no one will know who you are talking about (unless you're Perez Hllton!) And that lack of renown shouldn't matter. Watching your stats of followers and fans takes energy and time away from coming up with decent blog entries and I've seen some bloggers start relying on other people for information instead of coming up with their own ideas. Once you start looking at yourself as a public figure, you start second-guessing yourself, too.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Lesson? Congratulations on your success but keep some humility and don't be blinded by the swag and fawning praise...don't believe the bad and good things people say about you, it'll only mess up your head.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;{Steps off soapbox and splashes face with cold water} Okay, now I've purged that peeve from my system...until I see "rockstar" the next time.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Liz</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:38:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-769539</link><description>&lt;p&gt;honestly, we/us/you/everyone must get beyond these 'top lists' which are often talked about....&lt;br&gt;especially when they are deemed 'most important'.  is this just one huge social game?  who can hype the most, stir up the most shit, repost the most, comment the most etc... so we get link loved the most and swim in google juice?  so that the cult of the geek can live on.  funny how this mirrors religions, governments, corporate structure and i'd even go so far to include sports.  except the new Internets iz suppozedly different and leveled and... whatever.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;sorry for the rant.  just getting tired of the "Most Important" references.... but not to point fingers here especially because i *think* the post you reference was tongue in cheek.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;PS- please rank my comment +1.  thx peeps.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sull</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:33:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-769497</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If you were #37, would your post have been "Top 40 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking" ?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;sorry, just mess'n with ya.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sull</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:23:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-769115</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Paul Bucheit made FF as his own toy...&lt;br&gt;:)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Luigi Centenaro</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 08:38:50 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-768461</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Do you think that popular blogging people keep their popularity and followers on ff too!?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tommaso</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 02:52:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-768270</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Yea Phil, we don't rate on this list... bummer!  But hey, you're in my top 30!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">smbeebe</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:33:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-768268</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks for sharing this list...interesting results!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">smbeebe</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:32:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-768125</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Yea, I guess it wasn't fair to include a non human user but I didn't discriminate.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mark Krynsky</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:28:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-768040</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Aww, didn't make the list.  Good post, thanks!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Phil Glockner</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:06:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-767800</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Yep!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">smbeebe</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:07:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-767774</link><description>&lt;p&gt;isn't Mr. News Junk just a bot from Dave Winer?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">StevenHodson</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:00:05 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Top 30 FriendFeed Users Based on Google Ranking</title><link>http://lifestreamblog.com/top-30-friendfeed-users-based-on-google-ranking/#comment-767124</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Friendfeed folks should really use Google webmaster central to highlight the correct links instead of Deepak and Kevin :-)&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">atul</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:24:19 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>